Curtis

Curtis v. Cty. of LA

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 30, 2013B238870California6,692 words

Opinion

Opinion

Manella, J.

INTRODUCTION

Appellants Paul Curtis and his wife, Desiree Munoz, sued respondent County of Los Angeles for injuries sustained in a vehicle collision precipitated by another motorist, Andres Salazar Meza, while driving on Sierra Highway. The trial court granted respondents‟ motion for summary judgment, and appellants appealed. In affirming, we conclude that respondent showed that with the exception of the lack of a center median space or barrier, appellants could not raise a triable issue of fact that their injuries were “proximately caused by the dangerous condition[s]” alleged in their complaint. The evidence established that the accident was caused by Meza‟s intentional act of crossing the double yellow line into oncoming traffic. With respect to any harm arising from the lack of a center median, respondent established its entitlement to design immunity, by showing that an authorized official exercised his discretional authority to approve plans for the highway that included neither a median space nor a barrier.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

On May 18, 2009, Andres Salazar Meza was driving eastbound on Sierra Highway, in the lane closest to the double yellow line. Curtis was driving…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.